Comments on: Bad History Alert: Wu Sike: “Chinese relations with Arabs and Muslims date back to two or three millennia.” http://granitestudio.org/2009/07/27/bad-history-alert-wu-sike-chinese-relations-with-arabs-and-muslims-date-back-to-two-or-three-millennia/ A Qing historian reads the newspaper... Sat, 02 Jul 2011 03:31:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: richard http://granitestudio.org/2009/07/27/bad-history-alert-wu-sike-chinese-relations-with-arabs-and-muslims-date-back-to-two-or-three-millennia/comment-page-1/#comment-12527 richard Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:05:14 +0000 http://granitestudio.org/?p=1337#comment-12527 A great combination of wisdom, historical knowledge and humor. Thanks. A great combination of wisdom, historical knowledge and humor. Thanks.

]]> By: Phil Hand http://granitestudio.org/2009/07/27/bad-history-alert-wu-sike-chinese-relations-with-arabs-and-muslims-date-back-to-two-or-three-millennia/comment-page-1/#comment-12526 Phil Hand Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:33:36 +0000 http://granitestudio.org/?p=1337#comment-12526 I've sometimes wondered if this is connected to the old-fashioned use of reign dates, rather than a continuous dating system. I've met a couple of people - one old and one quite young, in his 30s, who knew a lot of history (depending on how you define it) and could rattle off events and dates - Guangxu 17, Kangxi 53 - but couldn't tell the lengths of time between two different reign eras. And badly so, I mean, they were out by centuries. I was once taught by an older guy who insisted that the unification of China was about 2000BCE, rather than 200BCE as I maintained. So it could be the math. I’ve sometimes wondered if this is connected to the old-fashioned use of reign dates, rather than a continuous dating system. I’ve met a couple of people – one old and one quite young, in his 30s, who knew a lot of history (depending on how you define it) and could rattle off events and dates – Guangxu 17, Kangxi 53 – but couldn’t tell the lengths of time between two different reign eras. And badly so, I mean, they were out by centuries. I was once taught by an older guy who insisted that the unification of China was about 2000BCE, rather than 200BCE as I maintained. So it could be the math.

]]> By: FOARP http://granitestudio.org/2009/07/27/bad-history-alert-wu-sike-chinese-relations-with-arabs-and-muslims-date-back-to-two-or-three-millennia/comment-page-1/#comment-12519 FOARP Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:37:33 +0000 http://granitestudio.org/?p=1337#comment-12519 Let alone the problem that the whole idea of 'China' even existing before the Han dynasty is somewhat suspect. I guess once you've swallowed whoppers like Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang 'always' having been part of the motherland you factual probity takes bit of a back seat. Let alone the problem that the whole idea of ‘China’ even existing before the Han dynasty is somewhat suspect. I guess once you’ve swallowed whoppers like Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang ‘always’ having been part of the motherland you factual probity takes bit of a back seat.

]]> By: Adam Daniel Mezei http://granitestudio.org/2009/07/27/bad-history-alert-wu-sike-chinese-relations-with-arabs-and-muslims-date-back-to-two-or-three-millennia/comment-page-1/#comment-12518 Adam Daniel Mezei Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:15:16 +0000 http://granitestudio.org/?p=1337#comment-12518 JJ, I'd like to know what you think about this: http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/interrogatory/aikman200312220001.asp JJ,

I’d like to know what you think about this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/interrogatory/aikman200312220001.asp

]]> By: kailing http://granitestudio.org/2009/07/27/bad-history-alert-wu-sike-chinese-relations-with-arabs-and-muslims-date-back-to-two-or-three-millennia/comment-page-1/#comment-12517 kailing Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:34:53 +0000 http://granitestudio.org/?p=1337#comment-12517 Yeap you are right, but no problem, as history is not what happened but what we say happened (also quite a long tradition in China official historiography) Yeap you are right, but no problem, as history is not what happened but what we say happened (also quite a long tradition in China official historiography)

]]>